Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Clinton and Lieberman Ally With ESRB 54

Posted by Zonk from the just-a-little-suspicious-of-their-motives dept.
Along with Penny Arcade, the ESRB can now apparently count Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman as allies. GamePolitics reports that they'll be participating in an ad blitz for the organization, aimed at promoting awareness of the videogame rating system. From the article: "This is a major coup for the video game industry. Senators Clinton and Lieberman are co-sponsors of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, video game legislation currently before the Senate. Sen. Lieberman applied the political pressure in the mid-90's that essentially led to the development of the industry's rating system. Sen. Clinton led the political charge against 2005's Hot Coffee scandal. The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?" 1up has further commentary on this announcement, including an insightful G.I. Joe reference.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton and Lieberman Ally With ESRB More

Clinton and Lieberman Ally With ESRB

Comments Filter:
  • For the latter, this is unconstitutional, except our current SCOTUS, Congress and Executives like to read more into the Constitution in terms of their power. They think the Interstate Commerce Clause gives them power to regulate, tax and tariff everything, even though that isn't the intent of the clause -- it was written to make sure that the States do not harm interstate commerce, and the Feds had power to make sure the States didn't get in the way of trade. In fact, until the Interstate Commerce Act of
    • treason war? Yea I'm licking at the flames now.. But I didn't think wars agreed to by the congress could ever be called treason or illegal. Oh yea we've been calling the Iraqi war illigal sense day one despite congresses initial approval. So I guess so.. :(

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
        Just a note: dada21 (the OP) is one of Slashdot's most successful political trolls. His ramblings have enough anti-government vitriol to appease naive pseudo-Libertarians (and their mod points), yet are incoherent enough to hide the fact that he's just trolling. I personally suggest not responding to his BS.
    • Okay you contradict yourself. Retailers are the reason why you join the ESRB. Not the ESRB itself.
    • I think you make a mistake in thinking that Lincoln made appeals to anti-slavery sentiment as the basis for the Civil War. In fact, what he relied on was American nationalism, centered around the semi-mystical concept of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was a simple military tactic by which he hope to provoke an insurgency in the South where much of the population was enslaved (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation only encompassed rebel states and territories). Lincoln was not particularly

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      If you want something and someone is willing to provide it, who is the State to decide that you can't transact?

      No kidding! If I want to buy that weapons-grade nuclear material, by god, they should stay out of my way!

      Granted that's a ridiculous comparison when we're talking about video games, but I want to highlight the problem with your statement - it's too broad.

      Now, with that said, I mostly agree with what you've said here, and the actual reasons for the rating system[s]. I don't agree that ther

    • ...they'd like their talking points back.
  • When I first read the article's title, I misread it as: "Clinton and Lieberman ally with ESR."

    I have never been more happy at my misunderstanding of something.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:12PM (#17152172)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by amuro98 ( 461673 )
      I thought she was calling for the government to create a "ratings board". I got the impression that she was utterly and totally clueless that the ESRB even existed, much less what they did.
    • Somebody probably got paid off. My feeling is that this whole movement to "legislate video games" was just a way to extort campaign contributions from a multi-billion dollar industry. Like how the democrats don't complain about obscene rap music anymore.

  • Mr Clinton was fine compared to the others, but (Score:3, Funny)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:17PM (#17152274)
    the stupid politics his wife is doing... My general impression about her is that she doesn't understand important issues or even if she does, she goes into populist mode.

    Yeah, a female president for the USA would be nice, but NOT this particular person.

    • CONDI '08 (Score:1, Troll)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Yeah, a female president for the USA would be nice, but NOT this particular person.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Republicans and Democrats are both populists. The traditional definition of the parties is that reps were conservatives who want to tell you what to do in your bedroom but want to leave business unregulated, while dems were liberals who want to tell you what you can do in your business but don't want to tell you what you can do with your wabbly bits and so on. Today both parties are populist through and through. Reps want to tell you what you can't do. Dems want to tell you what you have to let other peopl

    • Especially that Health care thingy.

      (Current Health Care Status) * (Government Efficiency) = Big Disaster

      Fortunately for me, in a pinch, I can afford to buy foreign healtcare, and Mexico is not too far away.

      I pity the less fortunate that live too far to drive to Mexico in a day.

      • (Current Health Care Status) * (Government Efficiency) = Big Disaster

        Except that is wrong. The best (most efficient) Health care system in the world is one run by the US Government.... You'll never believe where. The Veterans Administration! [usatoday.com]

        • You may have your ideas, and I have mine. I was a civil servant when I was in high school, and worked for a defense contractor after college. The government is very in-efficient. They are unable to change the way they do business, and the way they do business is set by Congress and the procurement agencies. The government routinely pays 5 to 10 x the street price for equipment due to procurement rules, and they can't fire non-performers.

  • Sidle up to the right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eddy the lip ( 20794 ) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:25PM (#17152422)
    The question that remains unanswered is - what motivated these two watchdogs to partner with the video game industry on this initiative? Did the industry perhaps make concessions or give assurances?"

    There's all kinds of shenanigans that go on with corporate donations to candidates, but I think there's an easier explanation for this. Sen. Clinton seems to be trying to woo the soft Republicans - I mean those middle-of-the-road, non-neo-con, socially conservative types. She can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

    Except, of course, that this ignores First Amendment implications. I mostly like Sen. Clinton and Lieberman (even if he is a bit wishy-washy, I don't think he's Evil), but if this is their motivation, it makes me wonder about either their ability to discern what important issues for the future actually are, or that this issue is an acceptable loss in the bid to win back the White House. Either one seems bad.

    PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

    • The reasonable man adapts to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

      I'd like to see one person (who might be a politician) grab the nuts of the masses on an issue and actually change public opinion to what they and generally the academic elite believes to be reasonable, instead of adapting the way that person does things for the sake of appealing to a target demographic. The first one is a leader the second is a clown.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Overzeetop ( 214511 )
        Nobody will stand for it. The Republican party has learned that, aside from stroking the Christian Right, the most effective way to garner support is to give people what they really want - the ability to be lazy. You see, taking a responsible stand on almost any topic generally requires effort. The effort could be reasoned thought, additional cost, or emotional fortitude. It's easy to dislike people who aren't like you, dump sewage and harmful chemicals into waterways to save a few percent in the monthly b

      • The reasonable man adapts to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

        I've always loved that quote. It's sad that our leaders are so governed by opinion polls and focus groups. We had a prime minister for a while that led. Pierre Trudeau wasn't always necessarily popular, but he had a very clear idea what he thought the nation should look like. He didn't try to sneak it in - he never shied from telling people what he thought - but

    • Re:Sidle up to the right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @05:53PM (#17153012)
      > [Sen. Clinton] can't do it on abortion issues, or gay marriage without angering her Democratic base, so she's picked an issue that's fairly neutral but has that nice "family values" feel to it. And it's video games, so it's not like she's giving up an important issue or anything.

      Sidle up to the right. Yep, it's all just a pose.

      You're forgetting the PMRC [wikipedia.org]. Back in the 80s, you see, politicians hadn't heard much about video games, but they sure knew about rock music. The PMRC was founded by a lady named Tipper Gore [wikipedia.org], and is why the uncensored versions of CDs have those little "Explicit Lyrics" stickers on them - so you know which ones to buy. You might have heard of Tipper's husband. I hear he almost got the Presidency in 2000. Gosh, the Democratic party has such a rich heritage of defending freedoms :)

      > PS. I'm one of those pinko-Canadians, so for me American politics is mostly a grand spectator sport. Flame on!

      Ah, that explains it. In Canuckistan, you actually have different political parties that have different platforms. We don't do that down here. We have one Party, and it's the Government Party. The Elephant wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see boobs, and the Jackass wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see explosions.

      The Party in shares its work between its two wings on most other issues, too. Elephants want to put a webcam in your home to make sure you're not a smoking pot, and to save you from the terrorists, and Jackasses want to put webcams in your home to make sure you're not smoking tobacco and to save you from junk food.

      • You're forgetting the PMRC...

        Nope ;) I remember that well. I remember watching Dee Snider from Twisted Sister put a panel of senators to shame by being the worst dressed and most articulate guy in the room.

        Sometimes it amazes me how much political energy, air time and public opinion is wasted on things like saving the children from the evils of GTA or making sure they don't hear nasty words in music (have they been to a school yard lately?) There are a few more important issues to kick around. I stro

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Guuge ( 719028 )
        I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by npsimons ( 32752 )
          I think the point is that conservative voters are more likely to support these kinds of things. It's pretty obvious that Clinton and Lieberman aren't trying to win over any liberal intellectuals with all this "family values" posing.

          And this is why I fervently hope that neither one of them runs for president because the last thing I want to do is vote for a Republican just to keep one of them from being president.


      • Re: (Score:2)

        by npsimons ( 32752 )

        We don't do that down here. We have one Party, and it's the Government Party. The Elephant wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see boobs, and the Jackass wing of the Government Party censors your video games because they're afraid you might see explosions.

        The Party in shares its work between its two wings on most other issues, too. Elephants want to put a webcam in your home to make sure you're not a smoking pot, and to save you from the terrorists, and Ja

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
          The above is also the reason that I'm not registered with any political party and get annoyed when someone thinks I am criticizing a politician because of their political persuasion. The truth is, both major parties in this country disgust me almost equally.

          It's the truth. And the thing about assumed political affiliation -- I hate that with a passion. In the past I've been called a "Republican attack dog" for criticizing Bill Clinton and a "Democrat stooge" for criticizing George W. in the same thread.
        • Yeah, that's really true. I was recently reading an article in the New York Times Magazine on the spy agencies; one of the agents interviewed for the piece commented that it was ironic that the bureaucracy of the espionage complex was beginning to turn into the cumbersome Soviet system it fought. I was thinking, if that was perhaps true for the US as a whole; the US is loosing a war in the Middle East against an Islamic insurgency (a la Afgahnistan in the 80's); it's hated for what the world perceives as
  • I think I'm begininng to see how Barbie Horse adventures got backward compatibility on the 360...
  • aren't these the same pair that went after the Dead Kennedy's for the Frankenchrist album back in the 20th century? PMRC anyone?

  • Democratic playbook: (Score:4, Funny)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Thursday December 07, 2006 @06:28PM (#17153660) Homepage
    1) Pull trigger
    2) Remove from holster

    No wonder they're so heavily in favor of gun control.

    Seriously, Hilary isn't a leader, she's a Poll Smoker, although obviously not quite as effective as Ms. Lewinski, who knew intuitively what the public wanted.

    I wish the Democrats would promote candidates based on issues rather than their novelty status. I have no problem with a woman or minority president, but no matter who's in office, I want someone with their head on straight. The situation with Democrats is so bad that it basically put Bush in office twice. "Sorry, we can't come up with anyone more appealing than Bush, even though 70% of the country thinks he's incompetent." If they don't find someone competent, and fast, they're in trouble again in '08, and if someone like Giuliani gets elected, things probably won't change too much from what we've got now.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
      Seriously, Hilary isn't a leader, she's a Poll Smoker, although obviously not quite as effective as Ms. Lewinski, who knew intuitively what the public wanted.

      I tip my hat to you, sir, as you have enlightened us all.
  • When they mentioned the G.I. Joe reference I thought it might be the saying they usually had at the end of the show after the little PSA skit. Like, little Timmy shouldn't play with fire etc.

    "Now you know........and knowing is half the battle!"

  • 1up has further commentary on this announcement, including an insightful G.I. Joe reference.

    Insightful G.I. Joe reference?!?!?!

    That's just redundant.

  • Quite simply, they are afraid to confront the real job facing them: Iraq.

    To quote a recent news article [msn.com]:

    Every day we move closer to the edge of a humanitarian abyss. Think the Balkans, Rwanda or Darfur, but with this grim difference: the United States won't be able to stand back from the slaughter and wring its hands in Iraq. It is implicated up to its elbows already, and there's more to come. Attempts to hold Iraq together by political compromise have failed. If the Americans stay there in any way, sh

  • Maybe they are siding with ESRB because parents/voters agree that the ESRB works just fine, as shown repeatedly in consumer surveys, such as the one recently conducted by Activision [gamasutra.com]. Clinton and Lieberman are, hopefully, finally getting the message that accepting personal responsibilty is better than trying to push unconstitutional legislation.
  • I, as a Democrat, have an absolute lack of support for that moron shrew's run for president in 2008. Who am I referring to? Can't say for sure, but it rhymes with Cillary Hinton. New York can keep her. Last thing we need is a few more years of "I know better then you" nanny-statism, be it from a pawn for the Religious Right or a DLC stooge.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close